CincyBattletech

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Darrian Wolffe on September 30, 2015, 02:17:20 AM

Title: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Darrian Wolffe on September 30, 2015, 02:17:20 AM
OK folks, here it is.

We've had about 2 years now of continually declining attendance, and a lot of folks citing as a reason a lack of interest in 1-off games.  So here's your chance.  Now that Eli's in school, I plan on resuming GM duties and getting us back - if not to where we were - at least back to the point where people are motivated to check the forums more than 1/month.

So far, Cincy BattleTech has run the following campaign arcs:
-3057-ish Mercenaries
-Jihad-era Claners vs WoB
-3040's-era Mercenaries
-Jihad-era Allies vs WoB
-Star League vs Amaris
-Operation Klondike


So right now, I'm opening things up to everyone here.  What era do you want to see us play?  Do you have a particular style of campaign accounting you like (AccountTech, Warchest, no logistics, custom logistics)?  Would you prefer a pre-written campaign systems (ie, Sword & Dragon or Chaos Campaign), or something else?  What do you want out of the next Cincy BattleTech campaign?

This thread will run until about the end of October, or until I determine that pretty much everyone who wants to answer, has answered. 
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: phlop on September 30, 2015, 08:37:13 AM
I would prefer to have a campaign with some clanners, whether it be something based on the "Wars of Reaving" or some other era, as long as it has some clan. That would dictate getting out of old school B-tech.
I did like the accounting system, I believe that it was Warchest. Exp. points awarded after each scenario. Also, possibly awarding bonus points to individuals who do extraordinary actions during a scenario. This might push people to try things in game that might not otherwise be attempted. The chance for extra points to be able to get that upgrade sooner, might make the campaign a bit more exciting.

Just a couple of random thoughts.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Ice on September 30, 2015, 08:15:44 PM
agreed clanners
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Timberwolfd on October 01, 2015, 01:35:47 PM
I would like to see something other than an intro tech slugfest.

Ideas:
1. Clan WoR - personal vote for Hell's Horses since they offer a little more varied unit base.  The [edit]Tokasha Mechworks defense scenario was originally the introductory mission to a campaign.

2. FedCom (un)Civil War - broad unit availabilities and diverse opponents. The Enemy could be an intro tech militia one game or an elite unit with clan tech the next.

3. Exodus Road - assault on Huntress --> Strand Mechty
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Hat on October 01, 2015, 04:19:04 PM
Dark Age could be interesting.  I'm fine with Clans.  If we're talking about the War of Reaving I've long been a fan of Star Adders as the initial books always looked like they had their act together.  Clan Blood Spirit per the original idea was cool as well.

I like having characters as a way of tying things together as part of a campaign.  I understand that the SPAs can be problematic and would be fine with eliminating or setting guidelines on them such as having a max XP invested in piloting, gunnery and SPAs.  With Clans though, bloodlines and bloodnames are a fun driver.  Or at least I assume so.  Never really played clans in a campaign setting.  Just random one off mech fights.

In terms of timing I prefer trying to schedule weekends rather than set weekends of the month.  With 3 kids in school, sports, cub scouts etc. I can't dictate being free every X Saturday of the month.

With a sweep of his...

Hat
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Black Omega on October 01, 2015, 09:39:38 PM
It has been a long time since I've played in a clan campaign.

I don't mind any era, clan or inner sphere, however I would prefer a character centered campaign or at least each player has their own small unit with which they can identify/take ownership.


In my old group's last clan campaign, we each had a Jade Falcon star and we bid against each other for the right to complete the objectives.  Each of us so wanted to be the unit to fight that we underbid ALL the time.  Our cluster, the 8th Talon of Blood, was renamed the 8th Puddle of Blood.  :-[ :-[
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Hat on October 02, 2015, 09:22:41 AM
The bidding process brings up some interesting possibilities.  Depending how that goes any players that are cut out of the bidding could help with the opFor.

With a sweep of his...

Hat
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: phlop on October 02, 2015, 12:27:58 PM
We did that with a clan campaign several campaigns back. Chasing down some mysterious Minnesota Tribe or something like that. Each had a unit with different mechs. Bidding taking place for the mission. Really enjoyable.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: serrate on October 02, 2015, 03:18:39 PM
Thanks Rob!  (^_^)b

Woooooo, hard to express how excited I am actually.

Era: My vote is for the most current era, as that allows us to use the newest units, and even pick them up from IWM when new ones are released. Since there are clans in the New Republic era, this seems like it'd still work with some of those requests.
Logistics: I like a simplified logistics system, like warchest or whatever the Chaos campaign uses.
System: You're the GM, so whatever you prefer is fine by me.

What do I want: I'd like to be able to manage a small number of units, instead of just one. Ideally, I'd like to have something going on the boards that keeps interest alive during the intervening weeks and gives us something to do. Whether this is RP, or purchasing new shiny toys, or even reading fiction related to the unit, it's all good.

I think maybe I'd prefer that we all be on the same side, and alternate OpFor players. A couple of reasons for that:

First, so that no one actually starts to see an opposing player as the "enemy" after fighting against them every session for 12-24 months, which leads to group tension. We should have but one enemy, and his name is GM.  ;D

Secondly, I think a unified campaign provides the most opportunity for creating the best story. It should be easier on the GM because he's writing/planning for one PC force. The corresponding story of the OpFor is more easily managed to account for the current player force situation.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Darrian Wolffe on October 02, 2015, 03:28:16 PM
We did that with a clan campaign several campaigns back. Chasing down some mysterious Minnesota Tribe or something like that. Each had a unit with different mechs. Bidding taking place for the mission. Really enjoyable.

Since there's a desire for a Clan campaign, I'm actually seriously considering bringing this general concept back.  I've had some time to think about what went wrong and what worked with it, and I've got a revision 6 ruleset that I've been working on, on and off for a few years now.

If - IF - I were to do it, it would either end up being set sometime prior to REVIVAL (3030-ish), or as modern Clan forces in the Dark Age.  The big change are:
1) Everyone runs their own force (with a cool PC commander)
2) Players are randomly paired against each other each game
3) Players bid against the other person in the pair, loser plays OPFOR
4) EVERYBODY plays the same scenario (as in, each pair of players)
5) The highest VP-scoring player decides where the campaign branches to next
6) Between games is Warchest-style maintenance/logistics
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: serrate on October 02, 2015, 03:53:37 PM
We did that with a clan campaign several campaigns back. Chasing down some mysterious Minnesota Tribe or something like that. Each had a unit with different mechs. Bidding taking place for the mission. Really enjoyable.

Since there's a desire for a Clan campaign, I'm actually seriously considering bringing this general concept back.  I've had some time to think about what went wrong and what worked with it, and I've got a revision 6 ruleset that I've been working on, on and off for a few years now.

If - IF - I were to do it, it would either end up being set sometime prior to REVIVAL (3030-ish), or as modern Clan forces in the Dark Age.  The big change are:
1) Everyone runs their own force (with a cool PC commander)
2) Players are randomly paired against each other each game
3) Players bid against the other person in the pair, loser plays OPFOR
4) EVERYBODY plays the same scenario (as in, each pair of players)
5) The highest VP-scoring player decides where the campaign branches to next
6) Between games is Warchest-style maintenance/logistics

Sounds awesome, sign me up. I vote for modern clan forces in the Dark Age.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Black Omega on October 02, 2015, 05:02:16 PM

2) Players are randomly paired against each other each game
3) Players bid against the other person in the pair, loser plays OPFOR


BRILLIANT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  (^_^)b

I'm not up on the most recent history [other than reading WoR].  But either era is fine.

Question:  Would Omni mechs be allowed in non-canon configurations or would we be limited to published canon configs?
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Darrian Wolffe on October 02, 2015, 09:06:05 PM
Question:  Would Omni mechs be allowed in non-canon configurations or would we be limited to published canon configs?

I hadn't thought about it.  My initial reaction would be the former, with the following restriction:

Repairing a stock unit: Unit tonnage in WarChest Points (Unit tonnage/2 for units with the easy to repair/maintain quirk)
Making a unit into a custom: 5 Warchest points per system added or removed
Repairing a custom unit: Regular Cost x2 (x1.75 for units with the easy to repair/maintain quirk)
Making an OmniUnit into a custom configuration: 2 Warchest points per system added or removed
Repairing an OmniUnit in a custom configuration: Unit tonnage x1.25 (Unit tonnage for units with the easy to repair/maintain quirk)

That way there's a clear advantage to remaining with a stock config, but it's still better to use a custom Omni than it is to modify a standard unit to custom specs.  Something I'd consider would be "each custom unit after the first in a Star takes a small penalty to repair costs" - the more non-standard stuff you have, the harder your Techs have to work.  And you can only beat Techs so many times in a Circle of Equals trying to get them to work harder/faster before you experience an unforeseen and unexplainable malfunction in your life support mid-battle.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Hat on October 02, 2015, 09:29:56 PM
Rob,

What you've proposed sounds good be it 3030 or current.  The pairing process also accounts for folks not able to make it a given month.  I'm not sure I understand all the proposed logistics, but I'm sure I can learn.  A PC commander in charge of a small unit allows for flexibility both tactically and RP-wise.  I'm guessing SPAs if allowed impact the bidding process and thus balances out that way.

Certainly count me as interested.

With a sweep of his...

Hat
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: phlop on October 02, 2015, 10:24:04 PM
I am in.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Black Omega on October 02, 2015, 11:21:28 PM

I hadn't thought about it.  My initial reaction would be the former, with the following restriction:

Repairing a stock unit: Unit tonnage in WarChest Points (Unit tonnage/2 for units with the easy to repair/maintain quirk)
Making a unit into a custom: 5 Warchest points per system added or removed
Repairing a custom unit: Regular Cost x2 (x1.75 for units with the easy to repair/maintain quirk)
Making an OmniUnit into a custom configuration: 2 Warchest points per system added or removed
Repairing an OmniUnit in a custom configuration: Unit tonnage x1.25 (Unit tonnage for units with the easy to repair/maintain quirk)

That way there's a clear advantage to remaining with a stock config, but it's still better to use a custom Omni than it is to modify a standard unit to custom specs.  Something I'd consider would be "each custom unit after the first in a Star takes a small penalty to repair costs" - the more non-standard stuff you have, the harder your Techs have to work.  And you can only beat Techs so many times in a Circle of Equals trying to get them to work harder/faster before you experience an unforeseen and unexplainable malfunction in your life support mid-battle.

Okay, follow up question here.  Given the Omni mech standard configurations, would a pilot get to use any of the standard configs without costing any warchest points or would he be locked in to one config only?
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Darrian Wolffe on October 03, 2015, 03:01:43 AM
Okay, follow up question here.  Given the Omni mech standard configurations, would a pilot get to use any of the standard configs without costing any warchest points or would he be locked in to one config only?

Small cost to reconfigure.  Same as listed in pretty much all the actual Warchest systems. It's usually in the 5-10 range, while you're dealing with rewards of Warchest Points in the low hundreds for a single mission (100-300 or so).  Comparatively, the cost to fully repair a non-destroyed Mech unit is almost always its tonnage. 

Don't sweat details on the specific numbers yet.  I'll put up a PDF for group review if we decide to go this route.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Death or Glory on October 03, 2015, 03:30:34 AM
Since there's a desire for a Clan campaign, I'm actually seriously considering bringing this general concept back.  I've had some time to think about what went wrong and what worked with it, and I've got a revision 6 ruleset that I've been working on, on and off for a few years now.

If - IF - I were to do it, it would either end up being set sometime prior to REVIVAL (3030-ish), or as modern Clan forces in the Dark Age.  The big change are:
1) Everyone runs their own force (with a cool PC commander)
2) Players are randomly paired against each other each game
3) Players bid against the other person in the pair, loser plays OPFOR
4) EVERYBODY plays the same scenario (as in, each pair of players)
5) The highest VP-scoring player decides where the campaign branches to next
6) Between games is Warchest-style maintenance/logistics

That sounds like a really cool campaign idea.  It makes me wish I was still in Ohio.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Timberwolfd on October 05, 2015, 07:51:00 PM
I could buy into this idea.

A number of variations suggest themselves for shaking things up on occasion. With an even number of players, the same process could work for # vs. # matches.  For example, 2v2 (3v3, 4v4...) for larger scenarios.

Quote
"each custom unit after the first in a Star takes a small penalty to repair costs"
One caveat I would propose for custom units, if you have multiple of the same (exact same chassis and config.) unit, the penalties don't stack for maintenance.  
I will have my streak-6's facing forward, surats.

I would vote for WoR as the period.

How do you see unit generation working?  Are we using RATs, player lists, etc.?
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: phlop on October 05, 2015, 08:41:43 PM
The last one there was a list and a player rolled 2 ten sided dice. 01 to 100 corresponding to some mechs. If I remember correctly. Each player rolled 3 stars, not knowing what he would get. It might have been done 2 assault, 2 hvy, 1 med, as an example. The player then would fill the star with his choice of mechs. Someone can correct me, usually am.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Timberwolfd on October 05, 2015, 11:16:10 PM
With my dice luck I will either end up with a lost star league assault force or a steiner hovercraft wing while rolling on the clan wolf table.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Ad Hoc on October 06, 2015, 07:04:16 PM
Logan, Lucas (my younger son), and I would prefer a character based campaign.  If the new idea of campaign is chosen, we are not sure about the one on one games, especially for my youngest son.  If the games were 2 on 2, 3 on 3, or 4 on 4 it would be better for us because part of us coming down is for us to play in group games.  We can play 1 on 1 games here at home.  The other month when we had two different smaller games going was great because the game play went faster and made it more exciting. We will also need help understanding how the Warchest system works and the bidding of forces. We have no problems playing our share of opfor either.

We really enjoy playing with this group and will play in whatever type of campaign that the majority and Rob agree upon.  
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: serrate on October 06, 2015, 07:47:31 PM
Logan, Lucas (my younger son), and I would prefer a character based campaign.  If the new idea of campaign is chosen, we are not sure about the one on one games, especially for my youngest son.  If the games were 2 on 2, 3 on 3, or 4 on 4 it would be better for us because part of us coming down is for us to play in group games.  We can play 1 on 1 games here at home.  The other month when we had two different smaller games going was great because the game play went faster and made it more exciting. We will also need help understanding how the Warchest system works and the bidding of forces. We have no problems playing our share of opfor either.

We really enjoy playing with this group and will play in whatever type of campaign that the majority and Rob agree upon.  


Those are excellent points. There are ways to accomplish the same thing while still having multiple players on the table at once. For instance, we could be bidding on who gets to take on the enemy assault force, who has to take out the power station, and who is assigned to remove the artillery threat. This could all be on the same large map, and due to the clans general competitiveness, it's plausible that they'd be working independently to accomplish various missions.

Assuming we even end up as all clans and not some sort of mixed coalition force, which would reduce the likelihood of cooperation even further.

I'm curious, for those who said they want clans involved, is the preference to actually be a clan force, or to simply be in an era that includes clans?
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Ice on October 06, 2015, 11:07:18 PM
im in for whatever
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: phlop on October 07, 2015, 07:52:19 AM
My comment was that we have some clan's in the campaign. It wouldn't have to be all clan, whatever the GM is planning is great.

Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: serrate on October 07, 2015, 02:07:24 PM
My comment was that we have some clan's in the campaign. It wouldn't have to be all clan, whatever the GM is planning is great.



Doesn't matter to me either, I was just curious.

Anyone else anxiously waiting for Rob to roll this out and let us start picking units?  ;D
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Darrian Wolffe on October 07, 2015, 02:34:35 PM
Logan, Lucas (my younger son), and I would prefer a character based campaign.  If the new idea of campaign is chosen, we are not sure about the one on one games, especially for my youngest son.  If the games were 2 on 2, 3 on 3, or 4 on 4 it would be better for us because part of us coming down is for us to play in group games.  We can play 1 on 1 games here at home.  The other month when we had two different smaller games going was great because the game play went faster and made it more exciting. We will also need help understanding how the Warchest system works and the bidding of forces. We have no problems playing our share of opfor either.

We really enjoy playing with this group and will play in whatever type of campaign that the majority and Rob agree upon.  

I sympathize with this.  I do.  I can't make the campaign perfect for everyone, though.  Some of what Bryan pointed out will be true (large games with sub-objectives), but that will not be the norm.

My suggestion is to create three different sub-commands within your household - one for yourself, and one for each of your kids.  See, the thing about running the 1v1 player games is that the campaign can continue whether we have 20 players in a week, or just 2.  So what creating multiple sub-commands in your household would allow you to do is give you the OPTION of each of you playing an independent game, or give you the option of playing a game with you and one son, you and your other son, or all three of you on the board at the same time playing the same command.  "1v1 player" doesn't necessarily mean "only on person allowed on the table" - it's just that the game is intended to be run with "1 person controlling 1 command".  If 2 or 3 people need to control a single command, that's totally OK too.  And since the highest-scoring player/command controls where the campaign moves to next, it's not like everybody has to be at every game.

I hope that makes sense.  It's clear in my head, but Robspeak does not always translate well.



Anyone else anxiously waiting for Rob to roll this out and let us start picking units?  ;D

Waiting to hear back from other potential players.  This is part of the problem - a bunch of people don't check the boards regularly anymore. 
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: phlop on October 07, 2015, 02:57:48 PM
I am waiting, the explanation was better than I could have done.
For the warchest system, it fairly simple to keep track of. Hell if I can, then most anyone should be able to.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Riegien on October 07, 2015, 07:14:28 PM
This sounds good to me.  I have a slight preference for the modern era over revival, just as I prefer some of the newer omnis and things that have come out over the original batch, but really either one works well!
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: agustaaquila on October 07, 2015, 08:56:06 PM
My two thoughts:

1)  I am leery of warchest points, as the system either breaks units right off the bad or units get so much that they no longer care about the cost of anything.  Yes, a GM can limit this but that often means that limits apply to one command (to steal robs term) and not another as the forces are likely to be damaged at different times.  So if we are fie with command turnover then warchest is fine, otherwise dice luck plays a huge roll in starting out.  Fun, but once a tipping point is reached then logistics no longer matters.

(granted, this is mostly with merc units, but a command is a command)

2)  I like the slightly larger games, but I understand how taxing they are too write and execute.  I am open to the idea of 1v1 format but until the art of bidding is learned there is a potential for lots of opfor time.

3) I don't even follow my own rules, and do not care about era at all.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Timberwolfd on October 07, 2015, 09:27:55 PM
My two thoughts:

1)  I am leery of warchest points, as the system either breaks units right off the bad or units get so much that they no longer care about the cost of anything.  Yes, a GM can limit this but that often means that limits apply to one command (to steal robs term) and not another as the forces are likely to be damaged at different times.  So if we are fie with command turnover then warchest is fine, otherwise dice luck plays a huge roll in starting out.  Fun, but once a tipping point is reached then logistics no longer matters.

(granted, this is mostly with merc units, but a command is a command)

This one is relatively easy to address with a "tax" that arrogates a fraction (say 25-50%) of the points above average winnings to the "Unit" for distribution to damaged commands to keep everyone at least somewhat functional.  Keep a "bank" reserve for the "Unit" for truly lean games.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Darrian Wolffe on October 08, 2015, 03:03:44 AM
My two thoughts:

1)  I am leery of warchest points, as the system either breaks units right off the bad or units get so much that they no longer care about the cost of anything.  Yes, a GM can limit this but that often means that limits apply to one command (to steal robs term) and not another as the forces are likely to be damaged at different times.  So if we are fie with command turnover then warchest is fine, otherwise dice luck plays a huge roll in starting out.  Fun, but once a tipping point is reached then logistics no longer matters.

I will say that there's some options to raise Warchest points in a hurry in the ruleset, so that it's hard to get TOO screwed (and if your command dies out, then you just start another one).  And I'm going to try to moderate rewards HARD this time, so that nobody is ever sitting on a gigantic Warchest pool.

I'm also aware I haven't actually posted the ruleset yet, and that you had no way to know any of this ahead of time.  So, good points, all.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Black Omega on October 08, 2015, 05:24:37 AM
I didn't say it earlier.  I'm definitely in.  (^_^)b
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Hat on October 09, 2015, 09:46:45 PM
I may bring along my oldest to play, but if so I'd add him to my command as suggested elsewhere.

With a sweep of his...

Hat
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Timberwolfd on October 13, 2015, 08:56:46 AM
What kind of unit size/composition are we looking at?
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Darrian Wolffe on October 14, 2015, 02:10:40 AM
OK, I'm going to assume we're going to do the Clan Warchest thing, though I haven't actually developed the campaign arc yet.

To tide everybody over, here's the current working ruleset.  You're welcome to make comments, suggestions, and so forth.  I'm under no obligation to make suggested changes, mind, but I will consider every reasonable suggestion.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Darrian Wolffe on October 14, 2015, 05:24:35 PM
OK, I'm going to assume we're going to do the Clan Warchest thing, though I haven't actually developed the campaign arc yet.

To tide everybody over, here's the current working ruleset.  You're welcome to make comments, suggestions, and so forth.  I'm under no obligation to make suggested changes, mind, but I will consider every reasonable suggestion.

And, naturally, as soon as I upload something, I notice an error.

There is a conflict between the table and the text regarding Star Commander Skill Ratings (under the "Bloodname" heading).  In this case, the TABLE is correct, not the block text.  This error has been logged for correction in v7.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Timberwolfd on October 14, 2015, 08:55:10 PM
Will there be any way to improve unit pilot/gunnery?
Basically, if I play Hell's Horses, will my omnivehicles be forever inferior?
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Hat on October 14, 2015, 09:06:43 PM
Rob,

Thanks for posting the rules.  What era, clans and TROs are eligible?

With a sweep of his...

Hat
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Hat on October 14, 2015, 09:07:41 PM
One other question, can we roll the unit composition rolls on our own, need to be witnessed, how do you want to work that?
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: agustaaquila on October 14, 2015, 11:13:09 PM
1) What era or eras are under consideration? Or is this being held to a future discussion?

2)  "Each of the other two Stars has a single Star Commander, which must be assigned to a Mech-class unit different from your Avatar." 
                What does this restriction intend to prevent?  For example, if I roll all 6s, and choose all my mechs to be Fire Moth Ks, would this rule force me to select a different variant for 2 mechs such that they are not firemoth K?  On a more abstract level, what exactly does different mean?

3)  The rules for replacing a unit have you choose a faction appropriate unit, while the rules for force creation have no such restriction.  Do these need to be harmonized?
3a)  When do you choose  which clan your force is a part of?

4)  Under replacing an Avatar it states "Star Commander Edge is unchanged."  However, there are no rules for Star Commander Edge.  What is Star Commander Edge?
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Darrian Wolffe on October 15, 2015, 03:01:39 AM
Will there be any way to improve unit pilot/gunnery?

From prior experience, improving P/G scores using the Warchest system is extremely problematic.  It's either too expensive to bother with, or so cheap that everybody spends the entirety of their WCP on upgrading their pilots first thing, hoping that they'll win the first fight so they can continue the campaign.  The balance point in the middle involves tracking kills and missions per pilot, which is antithetical to the idea of a low-paperwork campaign.  I'm willing to hear ideas, but I'd much prefer to not have pilot advancement as a part of this.

Thanks for posting the rules.  What era, clans and TROs are eligible?
1) What era or eras are under consideration? Or is this being held to a future discussion?

There's no answer on this yet.  I'm leaning toward a War of Reaving-centric campaign, but I'm still fleshing out ideas.  

One other question, can we roll the unit composition rolls on our own, need to be witnessed, how do you want to work that?

These will absolutely need to be witnessed in person, or I'll link everyone to an online dice roller program that can't be spoofed.

Wait - Travis, don't we have a dice roller on these boards?


Quote
2)  "Each of the other two Stars has a single Star Commander, which must be assigned to a Mech-class unit different from your Avatar."  
                What does this restriction intend to prevent?  For example, if I roll all 6s, and choose all my mechs to be Fire Moth Ks, would this rule force me to select a different variant for 2 mechs such that they are not firemoth K?  On a more abstract level, what exactly does different mean?

-You must assign a Star Commander to a Mech.
-You may not assign a Star Commander to the same Mech as your Avatar (this is covering for command console-equipped units and/or dual-pilot units)


Quote
3)  The rules for replacing a unit have you choose a faction appropriate unit, while the rules for force creation have no such restriction.  Do these need to be harmonized?

Yes, they do.  You will be limited by the MUL faction availabiilty for your chosen Clan.  Noted for v7.


 
Quote
3a)  When do you choose  which clan your force is a part of?

Immediately after Avatar Creation, but before the Star Composition Roll.  Noted for v7.

 
Quote
4)  Under replacing an Avatar it states "Star Commander Edge is unchanged."  However, there are no rules for Star Commander Edge.  What is Star Commander Edge?

It's actually just Edge assigned to an individual Star Commander which you have the option to purchase and doesn't automatically refresh like your Avatar's does.  As it's also mentioned in the Warchest Logistics Table, I thought it was obvious.  I'll add an addendum to the table discussing it in v7.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: phlop on October 15, 2015, 10:05:49 AM
We could roll the units at our next game. This might be the incentive to get people to the game.

Also, may need a thread for individuals to make their choice of clan. Don't know if we want more than one player per clan.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Hat on October 15, 2015, 02:06:56 PM
I don't personally see a problem with multiple people with the same Clan for a couple of reasons.

1. Inter-unit bidding was common so having rivals as other players makes perfect sense
2. There are a limited number of clans and forcing people to play one they don't like for uniqueness purposes seems less than ideal

In terms of other questions, for SPAs all non-SPA criteria are assumed to be met, correct?  So Sniper requires Good Vision, Dex 5+ and Gunnery/X 5+, and would be base cost of 150.  Rangemaster which has a prerequisite of Sniper would cost 250, as the player would need to buy Sniper and then Rangemaster.

Never having played warchest before, is this an accurate summary?

1. The only areas for improvement through the campaign are in force composition within the 15 points for the trinary and one-shot fate rerolls for Star Commanders.  All other aspects of the Avatar and his force are considered static.

2. Unit creation is completed on a pilot independent force creation.  Bidding is done according to pilot adjusted BVs

With a sweep of his...

Hat
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Hat on October 15, 2015, 02:16:09 PM
One other question - with custom units provided by an appropriate logistics score, it's a unit not a point, right?  So if you wanted a custom ASF point, it would require at least Priority C for 2 ASF units to be customized.

With a sweep of his...

Hat
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Hat on October 15, 2015, 07:13:28 PM
Next question - for customizing 'mechs, do jump jets count as equipment or motive type?

With a sweep of his...

Hat
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Darrian Wolffe on October 15, 2015, 07:25:34 PM
Never having played warchest before, is this an accurate summary?

2. Unit creation is completed on a pilot independent force creation.  Bidding is done according to pilot adjusted BVs

Bidding has nothing to do with BV.  Otherwise, yes.


One other question - with custom units provided by an appropriate logistics score, it's a unit not a point, right?  So if you wanted a custom ASF point, it would require at least Priority C for 2 ASF units to be customized.

Correct.

Next question - for customizing 'mechs, do jump jets count as equipment or motive type?

As they are something which can be pod-mounted, they qualify as equipment.  The intent of the customization limitations is to prevent people from doing things completely outside the bounds of how Clan customizations work.  For example, giving a Hellbringer an endo-steel structure, or making any unit from a Mech into a LAM or Quad-Vee.  When you're working within pod space, you use the usual pod space customization guidelines.  Clanners don't perform the "total conversions" that IS Mercs do (completely replacing skeleton, armor, heat sinks, engines), and these rules reflect that.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Ad Hoc on October 16, 2015, 06:31:25 AM
In the force creation section, we have some options for customizing the rolled results.  In regards to the first option "1) Once only, a player may trade an ASF point for either a Medium Mech Point, a Vehicle Point, or a Battle Armor Point."  Can this work in reverse to be able to get an ASF point or can there be a 5th option to be able to get an ASF point?  Because I only see 3 chances to get an ASF point in the Star Composition Table.

I know we are not talking actual game play yet but, if we do have ASF flying, are we using the rules for special maneuvers to be used only at beginning of round or doing a house rule that they can be used at anytime during movement.  I vote for house ruling  ;D.

Also, Rob this looks great! (^_^)b Thanks for always tryng to keep things fun and exciting.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Hat on October 16, 2015, 08:45:14 AM
Rob, thanks for the clarifications.  What you've proposed looks like a lot of fun.  Kudos!  If you don't have a dice roller on the boards and I can't make the next game, I'd be fine with you rolling the dice for me.  I'd just need to make my avatar selections first because of the possible logistics impact.

Mike, given the clans use of Zellbrigin I'm not sure that a lack of aerospace fighters is really a problem.  They might be handy to have if the OpFor also has them, but would likely be bid away under most circumstances.  Or at least that's my guess.  I haven't done a clan bidding game before.

With a sweep of his...

Hat
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Hat on October 16, 2015, 08:55:08 AM
After force creation and prior to the first game, can warchest points be spent - Edge for Star Commanders, loading advanced ammo, customization of units - or does all that wait until after the first battle?  I'm good either way, just want to understand what the options are.

With a sweep of his...

Hat
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Timberwolfd on October 17, 2015, 04:16:48 PM
For a clan WoR campaign we should probably add proto mech to the rules system.  Treat them like battle armor with higher repair costs?

I think the rules are looking pretty good overall.  I would like to see the repair of customized units be addressed a little more finely though.  Would it cause too much trouble to break customizations into 2 or 3 categories with the simple/small modifications being a smaller increase say 10-25% vs. Major refits being the full increase.  Basically, pulling a system and replacing the weight with armor or a heatsink is small, adding new criticals, changing more than X systems, or changing type (armor, internal, etc.) Is major.  If your techs could do the work in an arbitrary number of hours in a given facility type by the start ops rules would be another way to split them.  Make it the player's responsibility to show the difficulty.

Edit: Can we reorganize points after unit generation?
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Black Omega on October 17, 2015, 09:09:57 PM
Rob, will war chest points be able
to convert to xp to purchase SPA's at a later time? 
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: agustaaquila on October 17, 2015, 10:51:58 PM
Just for the record, I am in favor of protos as well.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Hat on October 17, 2015, 10:53:18 PM
Given that SPAs are less balanced than P/G increases and those won't be included, I'd be surprised if you can buy those later.

With a sweep of his...

Hat
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Darrian Wolffe on October 17, 2015, 11:04:53 PM
Rob, will war chest points be able to convert to xp to purchase SPA's at a later time? 

No.  However, since almost everybody likes advancement systems, there will most likely be a way to advance your Avatar's stats.  If there is, to keep things simple, it'll most likely be a combination of "you have to have your Avatar participate in X scenarios, AND must have Y number of kills to advance one Category upwards by Priority Level."  So, for example (EXAMPLE, NOT SET IN STONE RULE) you play 5 scenarios and have scored 3 kills with your Avatar, so you may advance any single Category - in this case Logistics - from Priority D to Priority C.  If you took SPAs from Priority B to A, you'd get the difference in XP to spend, but obviously you'd have to meet any pre-requisites for the new SPA.

Oh, and I'm going to arbitrarily raise the price of the Jumping Jack SPA, likely to 250 or so. 


For a clan WoR campaign we should probably add proto mech to the rules system.  Treat them like battle armor with higher repair costs?

There was a reason I didn't include them, but I can't remember right now what it is.  IIRC it was a combination of "Society Protos are bullshit" and, "the table doesn't have a lot of room to include them as additional options."  The latter can be adjusted - most likely by allowing a direct substitution of an ASF point for a ProtoMech point, or allowing you to swap up to 1d3 Mech points for ProtoMech points (Light Mech = 2-4 tons Proto Point; Medium = 5-6 tons; Heavy = 7-8 tons; Assault = 9+ tons).  But then we get into the issue of you can mix and match Proto types and masses inside the same Point, and it just gets very complex, very fast.

Protos are cool and add a new dimension to gameplay.  They're just complex as hell to implement, and I'm more than a little nervous about stuff like, "everyone replacing all Mechs under 45 tons with points of all Sprites."

Quote
I think the rules are looking pretty good overall.  I would like to see the repair of customized units be addressed a little more finely though.  Would it cause too much trouble to break customizations into 2 or 3 categories...

Kind of, yeah.  A really big thing in Warchest is simplicity - a repair of your Mech is always its tonnage in WCP, whether it's got no limbs, no head, and 1 point of IS on the CT left, or whether it's taken 1 point of armor damage.  Breaking down repairs like this both adds a ton of complexity, and it's always going to be frankly arbitrary where we draw lines between "minor" and "major" refits.  I appreciate making the player prove the difficulty, but the practical effect of that is to punish our players who have relatively full "real" lives (between kids and work) and don't/can't spend the time to min/max refits vis a vis WCP costs; we've learned that in our full-on AccounTech-style campaigns.

Quote
Edit: Can we reorganize points after unit generation?

No.  The point of the rolling and allowed post-roll unit adjustments is to provide a little customizability.  However, Clanners mix weights heavily in most Stars; full Stars of light or Assault Mechs are rare, and that rarity is intentionally modeled in the table.  The middle of the bell curve are the mix-weight medium-heavy units msot commonly found in canon material.  What I don't want to see is people organizing 15 Mechs into a Star of 4 Assault and 1 Heavy, a Star of 4 Heavies and a Medium, and a Star of a Medium and 4 Lights...and then always bidding away the Medium/Light Star first thing because they're not comparatively giving up that much firepower.  Again, that's not how Clanners operate.  There's no way to freely allow point reorganization without that becoming an issue, so folks have to work with what the dice give them (allowing for the various ways already allowed which you can modify what the dice give you).
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Black Omega on October 18, 2015, 08:02:26 AM
Rob,
Will the warchest rewards be sufficient to repair units so if one chose logistics F the unit will not be ground into nothing?

Also, does full repair of unit include reload or do you have to spend the wcp to reload too?
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Riegien on October 18, 2015, 06:06:47 PM
Wait - Travis, don't we have a dice roller on these boards?
Lets find out
Rolled 2d6 : 6, 4, total 10


It has now been installed.  to run it do ['roll] xdy [/roll], removing the ' mark
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Hat on October 18, 2015, 07:42:35 PM
Good to know that the roller works.  So rolling waits on at least avatar creation and potentially details around factions at least for picking which of the rolls to use.

Rob: In general, do you want people to select factions before or after rolling dice?  It's an advantage to pick afterwards, but it's consistent for everyone.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: phlop on October 18, 2015, 07:51:18 PM
Rob, not sure if this has been brought up. In force generation, it has "roll 4 times discarding identical rolls. Three of the rolls will be kept, and two discarded."

Are we rolling 4 times or 5?
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Timberwolfd on October 18, 2015, 11:07:56 PM
Will there be any way to improve unit pilot/gunnery?

From prior experience, improving P/G scores using the Warchest system is extremely problematic.  It's either too expensive to bother with, or so cheap that everybody spends the entirety of their WCP on upgrading their pilots first thing, hoping that they'll win the first fight so they can continue the campaign.  The balance point in the middle involves tracking kills and missions per pilot, which is antithetical to the idea of a low-paperwork campaign.  I'm willing to hear ideas, but I'd much prefer to not have pilot advancement as a part of this.

Okay, here is an idea. Each victory grants 1 piloting and 1 gunnery improvement point (or just one point for both would probably be better).  All units in a point must be upgraded simultaneously (both vehicles/ASFs/5 troopers/5 protomech pilots/...) and each unit consumes an improvement point.  Improvements are lost upon unit/pilot death. All units in a star must be improved to the same piloting/gunnery before a unit can receive an improvement to the next better piloting/gunnery. Unit and star commanders may be one level of improvement ahead of their star/command.

[Edit]
Test roll
(http://forums.cincybattletech.com/Themes/default/images/dice_warn.gif) This dice roll has been tampered with!
(http://forums.cincybattletech.com/Themes/default/images/dice_warn.gif) This dice roll has been tampered with!
Rolled 5d6 : 1, 4, 2, 4, 5, total 16
(http://forums.cincybattletech.com/Themes/default/images/dice_warn.gif) This dice roll has been tampered with!
Rolled 5d6 : 2, 4, 6, 2, 4, total 18

[Edit 2]
Note: After the roll, the roll is converted to block quote, which we can edit.  That means to keep it secure you will need to do it on your posts.   If we edit the post, even without changing the roll, the tamper will warning will flag as well. Luckily it can just be a copy and paste bit of code.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Timberwolfd on October 18, 2015, 11:48:33 PM
For a clan WoR campaign we should probably add proto mech to the rules system.  Treat them like battle armor with higher repair costs?

There was a reason I didn't include them, but I can't remember right now what it is.  IIRC it was a combination of "Society Protos are bullshit" and, "the table doesn't have a lot of room to include them as additional options."  The latter can be adjusted - most likely by allowing a direct substitution of an ASF point for a ProtoMech point, or allowing you to swap up to 1d3 Mech points for ProtoMech points (Light Mech = 2-4 tons Proto Point; Medium = 5-6 tons; Heavy = 7-8 tons; Assault = 9+ tons).  But then we get into the issue of you can mix and match Proto types and masses inside the same Point, and it just gets very complex, very fast.

Protos are cool and add a new dimension to gameplay.  They're just complex as hell to implement, and I'm more than a little nervous about stuff like, "everyone replacing all Mechs under 45 tons with points of all Sprites.

Okay, how about instead of proto tonnage restrictions, use proto point tonnage restrictions?  For example, a light point might weigh 15 tons total. It could be 5x3, 3x2 + 1x4 + 1x5, etc.  Off the cuff, light = 15t, medium = 22t, heavy = 35t, and assault = 45t. Let player substitute one mech per star out for proto points of the same weight class. Don't add them to the table, just let players sub them in.

As for the sprites, they are tainted Society designs run by pilots on combat drugs, just declare them off limits by orders of the kahns.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: agustaaquila on October 19, 2015, 01:07:34 AM
Bah, now your putting the kabash on my attempt to run a "saVage coyote" force of mostly protos and septicimiae pariahs. 
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: ItsTehPope on October 19, 2015, 09:55:26 AM
Bah, now your putting the kabash on my attempt to run a "saVage coyote" force of mostly protos and septicimiae pariahs. 

Probably for the best.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Timberwolfd on October 29, 2015, 08:06:45 AM
You say that like a horde of protomechs running roughshod over everyone is a bad thing.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Darrian Wolffe on November 06, 2015, 08:51:54 AM
Sorry I've been quiet on this, folks.  Maria and I have been out of our house for a while now - we had a massive water leak and had to shut off the water to mitigate further damage, and so we've been living in a hotel on State Farm's dime while the repairs are done for about a week already.  We're expected to get back home late next week.  Until then my computer access will be brief and random at best.

I'm here for an hour until workers show up, so I'm going to use this computer time to update the Star Composition Table to allow for some Protos.  The general framework of the game is GOING to be a War of Reaving-era game.  Each force is going to be essentially "working" for the Clan Watch as roving troubleshooters - find trouble, shoot it.  This should allow everyone to choose a force from the list of Homeworld Clans more or less freely, and since the Watch pulls from all the Clans, actual faction choice *shouldn't* make a huge difference except to guide your personal force selection.

John/Drew: could you please let Adam know that his commission will be delayed?  I'd send an email, but Yahoo is down right now.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Death or Glory on November 06, 2015, 01:38:43 PM
John/Drew: could you please let Adam know that his commission will be delayed?  I'd send an email, but Yahoo is down right now.

I just sent him a text.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Timberwolfd on November 13, 2015, 10:11:03 PM
Hope the water issues get resolved quickly and to your satisfaction.  I've been there and it is a royal pain.  I assume it was a water line and not sewer, sewer jobs really stink.  And stink in more than one way.    ::)
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Black Omega on November 19, 2015, 07:49:06 PM

Quote
3)  The rules for replacing a unit have you choose a faction appropriate unit, while the rules for force creation have no such restriction.  Do these need to be harmonized?

Yes, they do.  You will be limited by the MUL faction availabiilty for your chosen Clan.  Noted for v7.


 
Quote
3a)  When do you choose  which clan your force is a part of?

Immediately after Avatar Creation, but before the Star Composition Roll.  Noted for v7.

Rob, I have noted an issue with the MUL.  If one searches for mechs starting with let's say Jihad era availability and clan Ghost Bear, the MUL will give a list of a variety of units.  This list for example does NOT include the Mad Cat or even Dasher D.

However, if one searches Mad Cats and then selects Jihad availability era from say the Mad Cat A, then there is a drop down that does not say Clan Ghost Bear specifically, but says it is available to Inner Sphere clan general, Home World clan general, Wolf's Dragoons, Society, Word of Blake.  I have noted this for most, if not all of the original omnimechs. 

Will this second method be acceptable for choosing our forces if we want to stay with the original omnimechs no matter what clan we choose?
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: serrate on November 19, 2015, 08:45:11 PM
I thought if it was era-appropriate and Clan General, then that list is ok to choose from. It is interesting that Rob stated specifically that we'd be limited by chosen clan, since General mechs don't appear on that list.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Black Omega on November 19, 2015, 08:46:46 PM
That's why I asked.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Timberwolfd on November 26, 2015, 08:55:57 AM
Just how crazy can we get with the custom mechs?  Also, can we get a campaign year so we can set the proper limit on tech and units?
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: agustaaquila on November 26, 2015, 06:23:09 PM
Its war of reaving timeframe.  The other questions will have to wait for Rob.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Timberwolfd on November 27, 2015, 04:30:25 PM
Its war of reaving timeframe.  The other questions will have to wait for Rob.

I know, but the WoR timeframe spans a number of important introduction and tech availability years. A handful of systems translate from experimental to advanced or tournament level in 3070-3072. A rather larger number translate between 3078 and 3085 with a few stragglers. Now, if experimental tech is okay for custom builds for the campaign, there is no problem. (Note that I expect an earlier interval like 3070-3072 because otherwise many clans will be dead or have left the homeworlds, making allegiances a funnier issue.)

I would expect the Watch to be a rather interesting mix of neglect and cutting edge. On the one hand, they are not proper warriors to receive cutting edge equipment. On the other hand, where better to dump those high tech prototypes that have lived out heir useful experimental lives (or to field test them). So it will be interesting to see what Rob says for custom builds.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Darrian Wolffe on November 30, 2015, 10:04:37 AM
OK, since I've been living in a 10'x12' hotel room with a 5-year old since November 1st, I'd like to go on record as saying that I don't have everything for the campaign planned yet.  And by that, I mean that I've barely got anything besides the (amended) ruleset I've posted as a PDF.

However, as the campaign will not start until mid-January, there will be some time to figure everything out.  We will roll out starting forces on Saturday.  People will be limited by their Clan availability, and the General availability.  That is, if you choose Clan Puce Sparrow, you will have access to units from the Puce Sparrow availability list, and the Clan General list, because EVERYBODY has access to the Clan General list.

As for year, tech data, experimental vs advanced vs tourney-legal, or questions about whether you should have CrapMechs for being Watch or whether the Watch's military intervention arm that's supposed to be able to take on anyone from any clan in the interests of the Watch is actually a bunch of "multinational" highly-equipped badasses...well, I've got a song about that, actually.

"If you're wondering 'bout nuts and bolts
And those AccountTech facts,
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a game,
I should really just relax
For Mystery Clan Watch Game 3070**!"

**3070 is part of the song and not intended to represent a binding commitment to an actual in-game date.  This song is for entertainment purposes only; any resemblance to actual game content is purely coincidental.  The GM is not responsible for any loss or injury, whether physical, emotional, or psychological, incurred while playing this song or game.  People unable to relax may experience headaches, dizziness, dry mouth, loss of appetite, memory loss, rickets, or feelings that they are but insignificant motes of dust in an infinite and uncaring universe which has existed long before they did and will exist long after they have died, thus rendering excessive thought about the details of the game utterly pointless.  If you are nursing, pregnant, or might become pregnant, you should not think too much about the state and details of the game.  If thinking about the game causes an erection lasting longer than four hours, please see a doctor, because I don't want to hear about it.  Game may contain nuts.  Game is subject a variable interest rate.
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: phlop on November 30, 2015, 01:39:08 PM
"If you're wondering 'bout nuts and bolts
And those AccountTech facts,
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a game,
I should really just relax
For Mystery Clan Watch Game 3070**!"

**3070 is part of the song and not intended to represent a binding commitment to an actual in-game date.  This song is for entertainment purposes only; any resemblance to actual game content is purely coincidental.  The GM is not responsible for any loss or injury, whether physical, emotional, or psychological, incurred while playing this song or game.  People unable to relax may experience headaches, dizziness, dry mouth, loss of appetite, memory loss, rickets, or feelings that they are but insignificant motes of dust in an infinite and uncaring universe which has existed long before they did and will exist long after they have died, thus rendering excessive thought about the details of the game utterly pointless.  If you are nursing, pregnant, or might become pregnant, you should not think too much about the state and details of the game.  If thinking about the game causes an erection lasting longer than four hours, please see a doctor, because I don't want to hear about it.  Game may contain nuts.  Game is subject a variable interest rate.

 (^_^)b Like this.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Timberwolfd on December 02, 2015, 08:57:36 PM
3070 is part of the song and not intended to represent a binding commitment to an actual in-game date.  This song is for entertainment purposes only; any resemblance to actual game content is purely coincidental.  The GM is not responsible for any loss or injury, whether physical, emotional, or psychological, incurred while playing this song or game.  People unable to relax may experience headaches, dizziness, dry mouth, loss of appetite, memory loss, rickets, or feelings that they are but insignificant motes of dust in an infinite and uncaring universe which has existed long before they did and will exist long after they have died, thus rendering excessive thought about the details of the game utterly pointless.  If you are nursing, pregnant, or might become pregnant, you should not think too much about the state and details of the game.  If thinking about the game causes an erection lasting longer than four hours, please see a doctor, because I don't want to hear about it.  Game may contain nuts.  Game is subject a variable interest rate.

**Listens to song**
**Looks at wall**
**Breaks glass**
**Removes box from emergency box**
**Opens box**
**AccountTech 2: LawyerTech**
**Reads rules**
**Breaks out pieces**
**Rereads rules**
**Puts pieces back**
**Puts box away**
**Gets new headphones**
**Feels urge to buy pregnancy test**
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Hat on December 05, 2015, 06:14:43 PM
Ok, a few questions.

1. Do we start with 30,000 BV or 38,000 BV?  Version 6 that's posted says 38, but I thought Rob said 30 today when we spoke.
2. Do the custom units need to match your end force composition?  If you get 1 custom unit, but have no 'Mech heavier than a Heavy, can you make a custom Assault, or just Heavy?  I'm guessing just Heavy, but want to confirm.
3. For custom units gained through Logistics - how exactly does this work?  I thought I was clear, but now I'm not.

Option 1: Spend your full BV on all rolled units, determine remaining starting WCP (remaining BV/50) THEN add the custom units - so start with more units than rolled
Option 2: Create your custom units then distribute your remaining BV points with any remaining converting to WCP
Option 3: Your choice of combination between 1 and 2
Option 4: Something else

Thanks!

With a sweep of his...

Hat

Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Hat on December 05, 2015, 06:26:31 PM
One other question - I'm curious what other people selected for priorities as I didn't do mine at the same time.  I can post mine and hopefully others will share as well.

Clan - Star Adder
Priority
A - Tactics
B - Bloodname
C - Logistics
D - Gunnery
E - Piloting
F - SPA

Unit Rolls (Kept)
16 - 2 Light, 3 Medium
17 - 1 Light, 3 Medium, 1 Heavy
20 - 1 Medium, 3 Heavy, 1 Vehicle (Vehicle Converted to Medium), Likely converted to 2 Light, 2 Heavy and 1 Assault

With a sweep of his...

Hat
Title: Re: Future of Cincy BT
Post by: Darrian Wolffe on December 05, 2015, 09:56:22 PM
1. Do we start with 30,000 BV or 38,000 BV?  Version 6 that's posted says 38, but I thought Rob said 30 today when we spoke.

38,000.  If I said 30k, I mis-spoke and apologize.

Quote
2. Do the custom units need to match your end force composition?  If you get 1 custom unit, but have no 'Mech heavier than a Heavy, can you make a custom Assault, or just Heavy?  I'm guessing just Heavy, but want to confirm.
3. For custom units gained through Logistics - how exactly does this work?  I thought I was clear, but now I'm not.

If you gained 3 Medium, 1 Heavy, 1 Assault through your rolls, and had 1 custom unit through Logistics, you would do the following:

1) You choose your units from the ones allowed by the MUL (2 Stormcrow Primes, 1 Nova A, 1 Timber Wolf Prime, and a Gargoyle B).
2) You choose one of those units to customize (you may customize the weapons and equipment of one of your rolled units for no WCP cost - in this case you decide to take the Gargoyle B and rip out the missile weapons and Artemis systems, replacing them with an equal tonnage in cMPLs, completing the customization).
3) You check to make sure that you're under the 38k BV2 cap. (Yup)
4) Write down your forces on your Trinary Record Sheet and print out the record sheets for your units, and wait for January and the first game.